Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[Dice4Hire]

Agreed, it's not very different. However, one difference between a Slayer and a Weaponmaster figher, as WalterKovacs pointed out, is the decision point.

At 1st level, a Weaponmaster's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Choose between: AW1, AW2, E1, D1
The player needs to choose between one of four options.

On the other hand, a Slayer's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Change stance? (Y/N)

Only if you have two stances, and one is currently active.

If attack hits, use encounter power? (Y/N)
This breaks up the decision-making process into two separate Y/N decisions.

A player who tends to default to using the same attack every round will be less likely to make use of his encounter and daily attacks in the first instance, because there is no additional "prompt". Hence, he would tend to be less effective when playing a Weaponmaster than when playing a Slayer.

 

[Marshall]

Except that your armchair theorising has nothing to do with how it works in actual play. Analysis paralysis is caused by too many options at each given decision point. And made worse by having no default option. Stances and defender auras are fire and forget; your Defender Aura is either on or off. I've yet to see a stance-based class played without a default stance. Which means they don't need to think about it - just remain in it. The extra actions are only used when they spot an opportunity.

Then they are not experiencing analysis paralysis, because the stances and auras are offering more decision point and more options. The entire concept of a "default stance" is farcical. Theres exactly zero difference between using the same stance for every attack and using the same at-will for every attack. Again, you're introducing more complexity in play for something that could have and should have simply been a preselected build path.

The whole e-class debacle could have been avoided by a set of pre-gen characters and adding a handful of simple powers for each class build, that would also be usable by base class characters.

You mean the almost indistinguishable ones? Because they make analysis paralysis so much better!

If they are indistinguishable, than what does it matter which one you choose? Yes, simple effects often look similar. If you actually have that much "analysis paralysis" you are having the same problem trying to decide whether or not actually USE your PA or BS or DS. Again, e-classes dont solve any problems, they create their own.

No you don't. Your defender aura is almost always running. It's not something you activate except at the start of a fight. You then have one default stance (IME either Poised Assault (+1 to hit), Battle Guardian (+ damage), or Defend the Line (Slow - which combines with World Serpent's Grasp)). The question is "Is there a good reason not to stay in my default stance?" Sometimes there is - Cleave (or whatever the real name is) for minion-clearing and Hammer Hands for pushes have definite places. But the question "Should I stay in my default stance?" is much less likely to provoke analysis paralysis than "Which option should I use?"

Wrong. Now you are deciding between a handful of stances that take minor actions to change so they are up against MI and utility powers for action economy and after the attack you end up with another new decision point on whether or not to throw on the encounter power and then..... vs. Do I use the same at-will or the other one?

Really, Is your only experience with these classes in Encounters sessions? After third level, every single one of those "easy choices" starts to come into conflict with the other aspects of the game. Once you hit paragon, the question devolves to how do I order my actions to hit this guy with one stance and end my turn in this one?

"Does my default stance work? Should I turn defender aura off?" vs "Which of these powers should I use? Should I mark?" Yes, it is simpler when you actually compare like with like.

"Does my default stance work?" hah, "Which of these 4 stances is best for this attack? and do I have the action to change it?" vs. "Which of these two at-wills?"

Yes, please do compare like items.

Thieves who do not simply spam Tactical Trick are tactially intensive. Tactical and ambush trick are there to be the thief default powers. As normal you fail to understand the class. Acrobat's Trick and Unbalancing Trick (and the OA for escaping flanks) are gravy. If you aren't tactically minded you don't need to touch them. But although it isn't as screamingly obvious as the stance-based classes, Thieves have good defaults that you need a good reason to change.

Thieves who spam Tactical Trick are also tactically intensive. The extra 5 tricks you end up with arent there for show.

It is obvious from what you have posted that you absolutely fail to get why and how the Essentials classes work.

YOU seem to believe that the only point of the e-classes is to spam the same powers over and over. Guess what? Its significantly more complex to play e-classes in that manner than it is to play 4e classes as spam-bots. Ever watch a ranger in play? Quarry, TS, TS, TS...... Rogue? Flank, Riposte, Riposte, Riposte... The e-classes are inferior at being what they were designed to be to the base classes.

 

[FireLance]

Only if you have two stances, and one is currently active.

Well, at Level 1, you would usually have two stances, and once you pick one, you're in it until you decide to change.

By 7th level, the Slayer does get another stance, but by then the Weaponmaster has also added two encounters and a daily.

At 7th level, a Weaponmaster's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Choose between: AW1, AW2, E1, E3, E7, D1, D5
The player needs to choose between one of six options.

On the other hand, a Slayer's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Change stance? (Y/N)
-> If Yes, choose between: S2, S3
If attack hits, use encounter power? (Y/N)
Again, the decision-making process is broken up into separate choices between fewer options.

 

[Terramotus]

Half of my group, because they suffer from option paralysis when choosing powers, then end up not using a bunch of powers because they're afraid to blow them before they "need them." They grasp the structure, it just doesn't work in their favor.

It's impossible to really comment on that without knowing your DMing style. Is it possible that part of their issues stem from your style being highly unpredictable regarding when their next rest is coming? Do you sometimes hammer them with encounter after encounter without giving them a short rest? Do you give them clues when this is coming?

If it's just that they're hyper-sensitive to making bad choices... well... I stand by my point that the AEDU system is very very easy to grasp. Maybe they're just bad at making choices - I don't know your players and I don't want to insult them. But I have difficulty even imagining a reasonably intelligent person having the problems you're describing over a long period of time barring some very opaque DMing.

I've never met a Sikh. Doesn't mean anything except your experiences and my experiences are both limited and are not representative of anything but our own experiences.

Fair enough, but if you discount your experiences completely for the purposes of making judgments you render them near meaningless. What matters, raw numbers? Numbers are nothing without our knowledge and experience to knit them into conclusions.

Wonderful, I think we've found the 4e equivalent of "Thac0 keeps the riffraff out." Like we needed a resurgence of elitism in this hobby.

That's not exactly what I meant. I seriously doubt that there's a huge market of players who would LOVE to get into D&D were it not for the complexity. I find it even more doubtful that you'll be able to dumb down the system enough to convince them. Maybe there are some old gamers in that group that play 1E, 2E, or even OD&D.

How are you going to get them to switch now? They were left behind way back when 3E came out. People not exposed to pen and paper RPGS? They're probably into video games instead. You'll need a good ad campaign to hook them, and something more like the red box for them. That doesn't mean the whole game needs to be the red box. Was it back in the day?

But a market for rules-heavy, complex games? What about WoW? (Pre-Cataclysm, at least. That's my main knowledge of it). Wow has a huge market, and its complexity ramps up ridiculously as you get towards the top of the game. You have to make complex choices about talents pretty early on in the game, too. WoW has millions and millions of subscribers. I'm sure if WotC had numbers anything approaching WoW levels for DDI... well, let's just say that the face of the hobby would look a bit different.

There's a proven market for fun, complex games. Simple? Are we talking about trying to convert the Bejewled zombies?

 

[Rechan]

No, I will say I've had players who would have benefited from the Essentials. Especially during the character building phase, where they look at all those options, and their eyes just glaze over.

 

[FireLance]

This thread made me want to read up on decision theory, and after a quick Google and following a link from the Wikipedia article, I came across the following paragraph from here:

Why We Suffer

Schwartz integrates various psychological models for happiness showing how the problem of choice can be addressed by different strategies. What is important to note is that each of these strategies comes with its own bundle of psychological complication.

• Choice and Happiness. Schwartz discusses the significance of common research methods that utilize a Happiness Scale. He sides with the opinion of psychologists David Myers and Robert Lane, who independently conclude that the current abundance of choice often leads to depression and feelings of loneliness. Schwartz draws particular attention to Lane's assertion that Americans are paying for increased affluence and freedom with a substantial decrease in the quality and quantity of community. What was once given by family, neighborhood and workplace now must be achieved and actively cultivated on an individual basis. The social fabric is no longer a birthright but has become a series of deliberated and demanding choices. Schwartz also discusses happiness with specific products. For example, he cites a study by Sheena Iyengar of Columbia University and Mark Lepper of Stanford University who found that when participants were faced with a smaller rather than larger array of chocolates, they were actually more satisfied with their tasting.
• Freedom or Commitment. Schwartz connects this issue to economist Albert Hirschman's research into how populations respond to unhappiness: they can exit the situation, or they can protest and voice their concerns. While free-market governments give citizens the right to express their displeasure by exit, as in switching brands, Schwartz maintains that social relations are different. Instead, we usually give voice to displeasure, hoping to project influence on the situation.
• Second-Order Decisions. Law professor Cass Sunstein uses the term "second-order decisions" for decisions that follow a rule. Having the discipline to live "by the rules" eliminates countless troublesome choices in one's daily life. Schwartz shows that these second-order decisions can be divided into general categories of effectiveness for different situations: presumptions, standards, and cultural codes. Each of these methods are useful ways people use to parse the vast array of choices they confront.
• Missed Opportunities. Schwartz finds that when people are faced with having to choose one option out of many desirable choices, they will begin to consider hypothetical trade-offs. Their options are evaluated in terms of missed opportunities instead of the opportunity's potential. Schwartz maintains that one of the downsides of making trade-offs is it alters how we feel about the decisions we face; afterwards, it affects the level of satisfaction we experience from our decision. While psychologists have known for years about the harmful effects of negative emotion on decision making, Schwartz points to recent evidence showing how positive emotion has the opposite effect: in general, subjects are inclined to consider more possibilities when they are feeling happy.

So in some cases, the issue is not whether the Slayer is more effective than the Weaponmaster. You just feel happier playing one because you are faced with a smaller number of choices, encounter powers that activate on a hit allow for simpler rules for when you use them, and there are fewer trade-offs to make because the encounter power is presented as a bonus instead of an alternative to an at-will attack.

 

[Obryn]

Last year, I had a new player come into a 17th level game. This was a guy who was new to 4e, coming into a high-paragon campaign.

I wish I'd had Slayers, Scouts, Hunters, and Thieves available back then.

-O

 

[Incenjucar]

So Essentials is D&D for sad people? It's very unfortunate how human psychology works sometimes, especially since one person's psychology often interferes with another's.

Anyways, this is why I'd like there to be an easy-mode and a medium-mode version of each major class (including the wizard, the ACTUAL wizard, already). Give people who get unhappy with what could have been something they can be happy about, and then we can all go back to playing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then they are not experiencing analysis paralysis, because the stances and auras are offering more decision point and more options.

And fewer options per decision point. It's options per decision point where analysis paralysis kicks in.

The entire concept of a "default stance" is farcical.

Only if you don't understand how things work in actual play and are using strictly armchair analysis of the essentials classes. "I hit him." That is all you need to do. Because you are in exactly the same stance as you were last turn.

Theres exactly zero difference between using the same stance for every attack and using the same at-will for every attack. Again, you're introducing more complexity in play for something that could have and should have simply been a preselected build path.

Zero - except for a default option provided by the book. And of being able to say "I hit him". And of not wasting your powers - you Power Attack after the attack, and you don't have dailies for the stance-classes. However you slice it, playing woefully sub par and knowing you are doing so is not the same as playing very slightly sub par.

The whole e-class debacle could have been avoided by a set of pre-gen characters and adding a handful of simple powers for each class build, that would also be usable by base class characters.

Except that it wasn't a debacle except in the minds of a few people, and there's a genuine difference between what was done and what was proposed. I don't get much more out of them than you do- but they aren't aimed at you or me. And I roleplay in part to put my head into the heads of others.

If they are indistinguishable, than what does it matter which one you choose? Yes, simple effects often look similar. If you actually have that much "analysis paralysis" you are having the same problem trying to decide whether or not actually USE your PA or BS or DS. Again, e-classes dont solve any problems, they create their own.

Once more you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. PA is a simple yes/no after the roll. I have never seen anyone locked into analysis paralysis by that.

Wrong. Now you are deciding between a handful of stances that take minor actions to change so they are up against MI and utility powers for action economy and after the attack you end up with another new decision point on whether or not to throw on the encounter power and then..... vs. Do I use the same at-will or the other one?

And nine times out of ten you aren't making a decision. You are leaving the stance exactly where it was. And not spending an action. Spurious objection. And misunderstanding of analysis.

Really, Is your only experience with these classes in Encounters sessions?

I'm currently DMing two campaigns - one for eighteen months (that is currently Paragon) and one for almost a year. I'm also playing in three. In the campaigns I'm DMing, with some players (two in one campaign, one in the other) I've noticed a significant improvement in their play experience when they were using essentials classes. With others it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference (I'm in this category) - and with still others it would be a negative. I'm guessing that it would be a negative with you. Well guess what? You don't have to use those classes.

What experience do you have (if any) seeing Essentials classes in actual play?

After third level, every single one of those "easy choices" starts to come into conflict with the other aspects of the game. Once you hit paragon, the question devolves to how do I order my actions to hit this guy with one stance and end my turn in this one?

Not normally for the type of people who want to play Slayers IME. Pick a stance, leave it there, and say "I hit him." Not ideal play - but not far off the pace (unlike the equivalent from pre-essentials classes).

"Does my default stance work?" hah, "Which of these 4 stances is best for this attack? and do I have the action to change it?" vs. "Which of these two at-wills?"

Yes, please do compare like items.

"Is there a good reason to change stance?" Completely different. And "Which of these two at wills, four encounters, and handful of dailies?" The classes in question have different standards

Thieves who spam Tactical Trick are also tactically intensive. The extra 5 tricks you end up with arent there for show.

Not really. The extra tricks are useful, but Tactical Trick is a workhorse. Two of them (Sneak's and Acrobat's) IME have at least as much use out of combat as in it.

YOU seem to believe that the only point of the e-classes is to spam the same powers over and over. Guess what? Its significantly more complex to play e-classes in that manner than it is to play 4e classes as spam-bots. Ever watch a ranger in play? Quarry, TS, TS, TS...... Rogue? Flank, Riposte, Riposte, Riposte... The e-classes are inferior at being what they were designed to be to the base classes.

I've watched my pregen hunter do exactly the same TS, TS, TS (after freezing a bad guy out of the fight) and he wasn't missing a significant chunk of his class's power by doing so. Disruptive Strike and Fox's Retreat add a lot of damage but the latter takes planning. As for spamming riposte strike when flanking, that just leaves you dangling. Rogues who do that IME get squished. And the foe escaping the flank (while the Thief has a trick to keep them in place). But the thief doesn't need to flank for Tactical Trick to give CA. They just need to be attacking the focus fire target.

 

[MrMyth]

How is activating a stance and then MBAing every round different from using the same at-will every round? I am not seeing it.

Well, it's not - for you. But I've definitely seen players who don't get it, and rather than deal with deciding between two at-wills and some encounters, they look for their 'default' attack - which is the basic.

Now, one can impress upon them that it is usually better to use an at-will. And I've seen this done, where someone eventually just says, "Look, Tide of Iron is just better than a basic attack, just use it every round."

And that works... until the player needs to charge or make an OA, and is confused why they can't use the power that everyone has been pushing on them.

I know this all seems like basic stuff to you. But I've definitely seen this happen - and with people I consider intelligent, even. But D&D and all of its intricacies don't always 'click' for everyone, especially for new players.

With Essentials characters, I really can just give them a sheet and have them just assume their stance/aura is always on, and that every single attack they make will be the default one.

Yes, you can try and add ease of use to non-Essentials characters, absolutely. But the approach taken with the Slayer and others... it actively addresses almost every issue I've run into that confuses some players. That is definitely a boon, in my opinion.

I can get not liking it, but insisting that it isn't actually simpler - or is even more complex than what came before... makes me suspect those making such claims haven't actually run into the players who had trouble with the previous class design.